Once again I find myself wondering about the manner in which arguments are presented. In the letter “See Holland Example”…well, I did…see Holland that is.
And it is true that they have all sorts of weird political parties (including one 50PLUS — imagine — a party for older folks). And it is true that it often takes much time to form a government — but on the bright side of that the government still worked, at least the government bureaus did. What a great way to keep the politicians — if we must have them — from getting themselves into trouble.
However, the real argument comes down to the details which are not mentioned. The Christian Union Party which had 3 per cent of the Holland vote received its allocated fraction as did 6 other parties who received even smaller percentages of votes (including the animal party, the old folks’ party, and the DENK or ‘think’ party?
[Please note also that Israel has a proportional system that creates all sorts of strange alliances in the Knesset, and is touted as being the best form of democracy in the Middle East.]
The solution to this kind of fractional governance is to place a limit on who gains seats or is considered a party with benefits. In Holland’s case, a four per cent limit would have removed the bottom six contenders for political power. It is rare that a party that low in percentage voting would gain a seat in Canada e.g. the federal Greens had 3 per cent nationwide in 2015 and managed to win one seat. The BC provincial Greens in 2017 only managed to gain 3 seats but would have had fourteen seats if it had been proportional.
Another letter on “Electoral madness” presented information on the large sums of money being used to advertise against a proportional system. More than likely, without the disclosure rules in effect, this would be the provincial Liberal party (who are really conservatives) and perhaps both the federal Liberals and Conservatives who both benefit from the first past the post system across Canada federally and provincially.
The first past the post system is not a truly democratic method of assigning representation. Some form of proportional representation is much more democratic. Ridings can be left as they are, the percentage balance can be allocated from party lists. Admittedly the lists would probably be filled with party favourites, but as it applies to all parties, at least that method is egalitarian.
There are different options for proportional representation — and while some per cent limit does not allow all voters’ voices to be clearly heard, it does provide a better, much more democratic form of representation than our current system.
Jim Miles